Pradeep Kumar vs State of H.P.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.—Both these petitions, being the outcome of the same FIR, are taken up together for disposal.

The petitioners had surrendered in the custody of this Court and were granted interim bail on 9.6.2014, and further proceedings were ordered to be listed on 13.6.2014.

Today, the records of the investigation have been produced. It appears that the case of the prosecution is that the complainant lodged FIR bearing No. 54 of 2014 on 5.6.2014 u/s 3(1)(V) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, wherein it was alleged that in December, 2013, the petitioners alongwith the family members had forcibly erected kiosk (dhara) over the land belonging to the son of the complainant and when the complainant protested, she was assured that a proper demarcation would be got conducted. Even after having conducted the demarcation on 20.3.2014, wherein the land over which the ''dhara'' had been constructed had been found to be belonging to the son of the complainant, the petitioners had not removed the said ''dhara'' despite assurances and since the complainant belongs to the scheduled caste community, a case under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, be registered.

I have heard Mr. H.C. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. R.P. Singh, learned Asstt. Advocate General appearing for the State, in both the petitions and have also gone through the records of the investigation.

It is a moot question as to on the basis of the complaint if taken on its face value, whether an offence under the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, at the first stage, are even made out. However, this Court is refraining itself from making any observations on the merits of the complaint lest it prejudices the case of the complainant. Suffice it to observe that no case for custodial interrogation is made out and even otherwise, no recovery is required to be effected. The complexity of the petitioners will be required to be established during the trial of the case. Moreso, the petitioners otherwise appear to be permanent resident of Tehsil Karsog, Distt. Mandi, H.P., having roots in the society and there is no reasonable apprehension of their being absconding or fleeing from justice.

Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that it is a fit case where the petitioners ought to be released on bail and accordingly are ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No. 54 of 2014, dated 5.6.2014 u/s 3(1)(V) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, on their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Karsog, Distt. Mandi, H.P., subject to the following conditions:

(i) that the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(ii) that the petitioners shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or threaten the witnesses;

(iii) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the police officer as and when and if required;

(iv) that the petitioners shall not misuse their liberty in any manner.

Learned Judicial Magistrate, Karsog is directed to comply with the directions issued by the High Court, vide communication No. HHC/VIG/Misc. Instructions/93-IV 7139 dated 18.3.2013.

Any observation made hereinabove shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made hereinabove.

The petition stands disposed of.

Copy dasti.